Kassem v. Martin et al

Filing 123

ORDER denying 117 Plaintiff's motion to compel deposition of Debi Connor. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 7/14/2017. (AR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
LYNN KASSEM,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:15-cv-623-Oc-30PRL

MATT MARTIN, DEBI CONNOR, DC
SALES & ENTERTAINMENT, LLC and
DC SALES AND MARKETING, LTD
Defendants.

ORDER
On May 30, 2017, the Court issued an order setting forth a discovery plan related to
Plaintiff’s access of Debi Connor’s email account. (Doc. 115). The Court’s intervention was
necessitated by the parties’ failure to reach consensus as to how discovery should proceed. After
considering the parties’ arguments and available information, the Court ordered specific discovery
to be exchanged and authorized depositions to be taken over the course of a 90-day period and
provided that if, during that period, any additional discovery was sought by either party “that the
parties cannot otherwise agree to after good faith consultation with each other, the party may file
an appropriate motion, setting out the nature of the discovery sought, to what end it is sought, and
why the discovery is warranted under the factors set forth in Rule 26.” (Doc. 115 at 14). Plaintiff
has now filed such a motion seeking to compel the deposition of Debi Connor. (Doc. 117).
As an initial matter, in reviewing the motion and Defendants’ response thereto, it is clear
that the parties have not engaged in a “good faith consultation” regarding Plaintiff’s request to take
Debi Connor’s deposition. This alone would be a sufficient basis to deny Plaintiff’s motion.
However, the motion is also due to be denied as premature.

The Court spent considerable time crafting the discovery plan outlined in its May 30, 2017
Order. Now, Plaintiff argues that Debi Connor’s deposition should be compelled based almost
entirely upon excerpts of the Court’s Order—which notably did not authorize the deposition of
Debi Connor. Thus, although cast as a motion to compel, Plaintiff is effectively asking the Court
to reconsider its discovery plan. The Court declines to do so. The parties have already filed
notices advising that they have complied with certain paragraphs of the discovery order and
depositions of Nicole Imbriglio, Lynn Kassem, and Alliah Kassem have been set for later this
month Once this discovery has been completed, Plaintiff may renew her motion to depose Debi
Connor, but only after, conferring in good faith with opposing counsel.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on July 14, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-2-